Daily News

The Search for a Moral Consensus (3084)

Is Carl Anderson's proposal to transcend partisanship feasible and reasonable?

Discussions of politics and morality often focus on divisions and conflicts more than what there is in common. This is a mistake, according to Carl Anderson, head of the Catholic fraternal organization Knights of Columbus.

Over the last couple of years the Knights of Columbus have examined the opinions and values of the population through a series of polls. Topics covered included marriage and divorce, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and the role of ethics in business and in politics. According to Anderson, the surveys discovered a surprising unity among many Americans on a core of moral and ethical values.

The media portrays an America in a time of crisis — whether it be a financial crisis, a war crisis, or a crisis over immigration — but underlying the economic, social and political difficulties lies a moral crisis. More than two-thirds of Americans believe the morality of the country is headed in the wrong direction, says Anderson.

This is a major cause of people’s disillusionment with political institutions and parties. “Politicians and the media see a world of right and left,” Anderson notes. By contrast, “The American people see a world of right and wrong.”

As other commentators on contemporary America have noted, Anderson points out that the country has a high level of religious practice and that many of the debates on social and political matters are framed in moral or religious terms. Nearly 80% of people call religion an important part in their lives, and more than three-quarters say that marriage, respect for others, and personal responsibility are undervalued.

Right and Wrong

Turning to the continuing financial crisis, Anderson observes that many people have lost savings and pensions, or have been forced out of their houses. Yet, in most cases, no laws were broken and nobody is held accountable. Is it a problem of inadequate legislation, or more fundamentally, one of a lack of right and wrong, in effect a moral bankruptcy on the part of money managers and investors?

One poll showed that 92% of people believed that greed was a major factor in causing the economic crisis. In spite of this, both of the major political parties focused on more regulations and legislation, ignoring the overwhelming consensus that it was a problem that could not be fixed with just more rules.

The greedy can always find another loophole, Anderson comments, so limiting the solution to legal fixes only means that we are condemned to an endless reactive game of catch-up. What people want today is a call to morality on the part of both business and political leaders, he adds.

Human nature is capable of both greed and altruism, Anderson maintains. So we don’t need to limit ourselves to an economic system based solely on self-interest. Instead we need to challenge people to think of the broader consequences of their actions.

A concern for the common good and the practice of virtue would go a long way to ensure a system where profit does not come at the expense of others, says Anderson.

The overwhelming majority of people want business decisions to be guided by moral choices. Nearly two-thirds of Americans think that religious values have a place in influencing the decisions of executives, and an even higher number — 70% — of executives agree.

A similar situation exists in politics. Most people are tired of the political bickering and consider that politicians have lost touch with the people. “The issue of political polarization isn’t a problem for most of us, yet for far too many politicians and pundits, we are all either red or blue,” Anderson observes.

Discontent

As well, over 80% of people consider that politicians are moving the nation’s moral compass in the wrong direction — a higher level of discontent than even for the news media and the entertainment industry.

Americans tend to favor a limited government role, not only due to a longstanding preference for the individual, but also because of the conviction that the Washington elite does not share the ethical values of the great majority of the nation, Anderson argues. It’s not hard for politicians to discover what people’s values and concerns are, they only need to listen, he says.

One of the issues that has caused division for many years is abortion. On the surface it seems that the debate is a bitter divide between the pro-life and pro-choice positions.

Surveys show, however, a clear preference for a law on abortion that is more restrictive than the current situation, where there is no limit at all when abortions can be carried out. About 80% of Americans favor a situation where abortion is limited to the first trimester, Anderson noted. Only 16% of men and 11% of women say that abortion should be legal at any time.

So instead of a clash of absolutes there is, in fact, a surprising degree of consensus. “That moral consensus — that abortion can and should be restricted — ought to be the starting point for resolving the political impasse on abortion,” says Anderson.

On another hotly debated topic — same-sex “marriage” — the media reports give the impression that public opinion is split down the middle. The polling by the Knights of Columbus reveals, nevertheless, that when a full range of options is given — same-sex “marriage,” civil unions, or no legal recognition — that 38% favor no legal recognition, 28% support civil unions, and so nearly two-thirds do not favor re-defining marriage.

This support for the traditional view of marriage is evident in the fact that in 31 states voters have supported amendments that define marriage as only between a man and a woman, Anderson points out. In all the places where same-sex marriage has been legalized, it was done by judges or legislators, and not by the public.

Precipitous juridical action, as occurred with the abortion decision of Roe v. Wade, would be a grave mistake, Anderson warned, and would lead to far more division than the current national debate on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Gap

In the book’s concluding chapter, Anderson states that it is undeniable that there exists a values gap between the American people and those in government. There is also a gap between the consensus of many citizens on many issues and the habitual tendency of the media to portray debates as a conflict between extreme positions.

A return to traditional moral values as a way to resolve the economic and social crises of our times is the path favored by a strong majority of Americans. “We are a people united by values, a people who respect most those who volunteer their time for others, and those organizations that facilitate such activity,” says Anderson.

It’s time for politicians to see this consensus and go beyond the political impasse that characterizes the debate on many issues, he pleads.

Anderson also urges that the discussion on issues of economic or social policy be characterized by a greater degree of charity, respect, and civility. Overall, this brief book, at just over a hundred pages, provides a refreshing call to recognize the core of solid values that continues to unite a solid majority of Americans.

Legionary Father John Flynn writes from Rome. This article originally appeared in Zenit.

Comments

The need to return to “values” would be greatly satisfied if our legislatures returned to those contained in the Constitution and impeached any judges who found “rights” (such as the right to abortion or same gender marriage) that are not there present. They should also be impeached for misinterpreting the “establishment article” to find that it is necessary to remove “God”, who endowed us with our rights, from the public square. The “values” on which this country was founded came from the Judeo-Christian roots of Western civilization and until they are reestablished on this foundation I am afraid Carl Anderson is a “voice crying in the wilderness”.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Nov 23, 2010 7:37 PM (EDT):

“One poll showed that 92% of people believed that greed was a major factor in causing the economic crisis.”

I’d sure like to see how that poll question was asked. I’d also like to know what is meant by “greed.”

Seems to me the subprime mortgages were the start of the financial fire, to put it in forest fire terms of how the problem started. The government forced (Congress and White House, and principally Democrats over the last 30 years starting with Carter) the mortgage lending industry to relax their lending standards to enable lower income and poor people to be given home mortgages. Clinton’s AG threatened to sue the lenders if they continued “discriminating” against the lower income home buyers, coupled with organizations like ACORN organizing demonstrations inside banks and outside bank manager’s homes resulted in the growth of the sub prime market. Because the Archdiocese of Chicago gave millions to ACORN to support such causes in Chicago, I can’t help but believe that the NCCA/USCCB were in support with what the Democrats were doing with the mortgage markets.

The Democrats with cooperation of their allies in the media have done a good job of deflecting their responsibility for bringing on our country’s financial problems, and this poll reflects that. What I’d like to know is will the bishops investigate whether they were an accessory to pushing the subprime loans onto the mortgage markets by supporting Democrat efforts in this area especially the Democrats in Congress when they were rejecting efforts by Republican members to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were the vehicles the government used to drive the subprimes. I think this is an important issue to exam as long as the word “greed” is believed to be “a major factor in the economic crisis.” It’s important to make sure where that “greed” really came from so that any corrections are properly made. It would also mean that when the bishops’ support some government program that is financial in nature, that they use the brains God gave them, not just their hearts.

Posted by Francis on Tuesday, Nov 23, 2010 11:53 AM (EDT):

Good article.

Posted by vitadMD on Monday, Nov 22, 2010 7:51 PM (EDT):

As agreeable and factual the analysis presented here is, the problem is that of intellectual dishonesty… on the part of the media, political operatives, politicians, and all sorts of power brokers. This will not change unless and until we as a nation resolve issues of election fraud, gerrymandering, and corruption in media and government. This must begin not just by reading books such as this one, but by realizing and accepting the individual civic responsibility of independently studying national, state, and local issues, as well as our history and foundational principles… then engaging with each other and becoming as politically active as possible. These divisions and distortions are productive tools used by government, media, and the left generally because they work to confuse and divide us further.

Posted by MarylandBill on Monday, Nov 22, 2010 3:33 PM (EDT):

I applaud the notion that our country needs to move beyond right and left towards right and wrong. Unfortunately, some of the poll results lead me to question if most Americans really understand what right and wrong are?

I suppose I should be comforted that most Americans would like abortion restricted after the 1st trimester. Unfortunately, there really is no moral distinction between an abortion in the first or the third term or for that matter between any abortion and simple murder of another person. As Catholics, I don’t think we should be celebrating a compromise on an issue of intrinsic evil.

The fact that most American’s oppose abortion in the second and third trimester—but not the first—could well indicate that the pro-life’s message has been effective at reaching people’s hearts but not their minds. In other words, it is awfully hard for people to deny that a baby is a baby when it in fact looks an awful lot like a baby. What appears not to have happened is a rigorous moral evaluation of the situation on the part of that fraction of the 80% that would support first trimester abortion being legal.

Likewise, while almost 2/3rds don’t support redefining marriage to allow gay “marriage”, I wonder if we should not be more concerned with the fact that almost 2/3rds of Americans favor gay “marriage” or civil unions. Ultimately, if civil unions are granted the same rights and privileges as marriage, then isn’t it calling it a civil union simply a window dressing to allow gay “marriage” through the back door?

Ultimately, the danger with compromise (or consensus) of this sort is that it can be used to erode support for real issues.

—
Bill

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.